The workplace has evolved dramatically in the past decades. Technology has improved, innovative ways of utilising nuclear power have been developed, new chemicals have been introduced to the market and the adverse effects of other chemicals on both human health and safety and the environment have been discovered. This has influenced the nature of the workplace itself. While employees enjoy a common law right to a safe working environment and health and safety, state intervention currently provides restricted claims to an employee who has sustained injuries or contracted occupational diseases. This thesis explores the effect of section 35 of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act 130 of 1993 which deprives an employee of its common law right to institute civil action against an employer for an injury sustained or disease contracted during the course and scope of employment. Furthermore, this thesis also explores the marriage between the Occupational Health and Safety Act 89 of 1993 and the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act 130 of 1993 as well as the position of ‘employee’ and ‘employer’ insofar as the scope and application of these two acts are concerned with specific reference to the position of labour broker employees. The use of indemnity clauses and its validity in South Africa will also be explored and discussed. This thesis also dedicates a chapter to the leading case authority of Jooste v Score Supermarket Trading (Pty) Ltd and its effect insofar as the enforcement and application of section 35 of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act 130 of 1993 is concerned. It is impossible to mention all the changes in the workplace that have occurred in the recent years, and this discussion therefore focuses on the current position of employees who have been deprived of their common law right to institute delictual action for damages resulting from an injury sustained while on duty as well as the impact of the current restrictive claims available to them. Alterations to existing approaches are also proposed to resurrect the common law right of employees to institute action against their employers. / Abstract

Die vorgelegte Arbeit behandelt die Haftungsbelastung des Arbeitnehmers, wenn dieser im Rahmen seiner Arbeitstätigkeit einen Dritten schädigt. Es handelt sich um eine rechtsvergleichende Betrachtung, die sich die Erstellung eines europäischen Regelungsentwurfes zum Ziel gemacht hat. Rechtsvergleichend konnte festgestellt werden, dass im europäischen Rechtsraum teils gravierende Unterschiede bei der Haftungsinanspruchnahme des Arbeitnehmers zu verzeichnen sind. Diese Unterschiede beruhen auf divergierenden Wertungen der Frage ob eine Haftungsaufteilung zwischen Arbeitgeber und Arbeitnehmer geboten ist. Von den untersuchten Argumenten für und wider einer Haftungsentlastung des Arbeitnehmers haben sich die Fürsorgepflicht des Arbeitgebers und das Betriebsrisiko als tragende Argumente für eine Haftungsverlagerung erwiesen. Es wird daher die Haftung des Arbeitnehmers nur für vorsätzliches Verhalten vorgeschlagen. Im übrigen wird das Haftungsrisiko dem Arbeitgeber zugewiesen. Für den europäischen Rechtsraum wird eine Versicherungspflicht empfohlen. Die Pflichtversicherung tritt hierbei für den entstehenden Schaden ein. Nur im Falle der Vorsatzhandlung durch den Arbeitnehmer kann diesem gegenüber Regress genommen werden. Die Versicherung wird nach diesem Modell durch den Arbeitgeber abgeschlossen. Eine Mindestversicherungssumme soll festgelegt werden. Im Einzelfall wird bei hinreichend nachgewiesener Liquidität eine Befreiung von der Versicherungspflicht ermöglicht. Die Beitragsgestaltung richtet sich nach der Gefahrgeneigtheit der im Betrieb durchgeführten Arbeiten sowie nach der Häufigkeit von Haftungsfällen, so dass das individuelle Schadensrisiko des Unternehmens berücksichtigt wird. Eine zuverlässige Kontrolle des Versicherungsabschlusses soll von staatlicher Seite aus gewährleistet werden. Eine Vereinheitlichung dieser Haftungsfrage im europäischen Rechtsraum sollte nur im Rahmen eines europäischen Zivilrechtsbuches erfolgen. Es wurden die bestehenden Harmonisierungsmöglichkeiten untersucht. Eine Privatrechtsvereinheitlichung kann nach Autorenauffassung am besten über den Weg eines Modellgesetzes umgesetzt werden. / The present dissertation deals with the liability an employee bears in case he injures a third person in course of employment. It’s a comparative study which aims to draft an outline for a unified European rule. There were apparent differences between the compared European laws regarding the topic of vicarious liability. The variations in how liability is shared between employee and employer are created by dissimilar morals and values. Of the studied arguments for or against the principle of vicarious liability have two persuaded in favour of a shared liability between the parties of employment. The first is the employers obligation to care for the welfare of his employees and the second the inherent risk of the business itself which puts an obligation on the employer to share the liability for damage done to third parties in course of employment. In detail this study suggests to keep the employee liable for intended acts only. Apart the liability is to be carried by the employer. The concept proposes further a compulsory insurance which is to be paid for by the employer. The insurance however is obliged to step in for all the damage done in course of the employment by the employee. Only in case of intention there is the right of the insurance to take regress at the employee. Part of the concept is a minimum sum to be insured. State enterprises and comparable solvent companies shall have the opportunity to apply for an exception of the requirement to insure. Insurance rate should connect to the individual risk of the business, considering the risk-level in course of the operation of the particular business and the quantity of actual damages done. A reliable control by officials is necessary to ensure that the employer cared for the insurance. A unification of the matter should only take place in a European context of a unified civil law. A study of the existing possibilities to harmonise private law in Europe led to the conclusion that the subject of vicarious liability within a new European civil code should be drawn in the shape of a model law.

O presente estudo aborda o acidente do trabalho e sua reparação pelo direito comum em face dos dois principais sistemas que fundamentam a responsabilização civil do empregador por acidentes do trabalho - subjetivo e objetivo -, principalmente após a entrada em vigor do novel Código Civil brasileiro, o qual, a despeito de ter mantido como regra geral, no caput do seu artigo 927, a responsabilidade subjetiva, estabeleceu, no parágrafo único desse mesmo dispositivo, concomitantemente, regime especial de responsabilidade objetiva nas hipóteses especificadas em lei ou na hipótese de a atividade normalmente desenvolvida pelo autor do dano implicar, por sua natureza, risco para os direitos de outrem. Se há a compreensão imediata da primeira parte do parágrafo único do artigo em comento, na segunda, as hipóteses de risco são dadas sob a forma de cláusula geral, cabendo ao intérprete a tarefa de preencher a lacuna legal. Essa é uma tarefa que deve ser executada à luz da Constituição Federal brasileira, que prevê, em seu artigo 7º, inciso XXVIII, a responsabilidade do empregador por culpa ou dolo. Assim, na questão acidente do trabalho, a presente tese demonstra que a teoria do risco tem avançado cada vez mais sobre o terreno da responsabilidade subjetiva, sem, contudo, ter transformado a responsabilidade objetiva em regra geral incidente a partir de simples avaliação circunstancial de um dano verificado na relação de trabalho. Concluiu-se que as atividades que justifiquem a aplicação de uma responsabilidade especial dependem, na análise do caso concreto, antes da apreciação do mérito, de uma decisão judicial de natureza declaratória nesse sentido, representando valioso instrumento para a reparação dos danos ocorridos em atividades de risco não capituladas em lei. / The present study is concerned with labor-related accidents and their reparations through the normal course of law, taking into consideration the two main systems on which the employers civil liability is based - subjective and objective -, especially after the new Brazilian Civil Code came into force, which, in spite of the general rule of subjective liability being upheld in the caput of article 937, established in the single paragraph of this same article a special regimen of objective liability on the basis of hypotheses specified in law or on the hypothesis that the activity normally undertaken by the author of damages incurred implies by its very nature in risk to the rights of others. If the first part of the single paragraph of the article under discussion may be immediately comprehended, in the second part, the hypotheses are presented as a general rule, thus leaving the task of filling this legal interpretation gap in the hands of the person making the interpretation. This is a task which should be undertaken in the light of the Brazilian Federal Constitution, which, in article 7th subparagraph XXVIII, recognizes the liability of the employer by blame or intention. Thus with regard to labor-related accidents, the present thesis demonstrates that the theory of risk has increasingly advanced into the territory of subjective liability, without however turning objective liability into a general prevailing rule when undertaking circumstantial assessment of damages incurred as a result of work. It is concluded that activities which justify the application of special liability depend, where a concrete case is analyzed and before final judgment is passed, on a judicial declaration for this, and this represents a valuable instrument for reparation of damages incurred in activities of risk not covered by the law.

Univ., Diss.--Köln, 2004.

Thesis (doctoral)--Université de Genève. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 359-383).

O presente estudo aborda o acidente do trabalho e sua reparação pelo direito comum em face dos dois principais sistemas que fundamentam a responsabilização civil do empregador por acidentes do trabalho - subjetivo e objetivo -, principalmente após a entrada em vigor do novel Código Civil brasileiro, o qual, a despeito de ter mantido como regra geral, no caput do seu artigo 927, a responsabilidade subjetiva, estabeleceu, no parágrafo único desse mesmo dispositivo, concomitantemente, regime especial de responsabilidade objetiva nas hipóteses especificadas em lei ou na hipótese de a atividade normalmente desenvolvida pelo autor do dano implicar, por sua natureza, risco para os direitos de outrem. Se há a compreensão imediata da primeira parte do parágrafo único do artigo em comento, na segunda, as hipóteses de risco são dadas sob a forma de cláusula geral, cabendo ao intérprete a tarefa de preencher a lacuna legal. Essa é uma tarefa que deve ser executada à luz da Constituição Federal brasileira, que prevê, em seu artigo 7º, inciso XXVIII, a responsabilidade do empregador por culpa ou dolo. Assim, na questão acidente do trabalho, a presente tese demonstra que a teoria do risco tem avançado cada vez mais sobre o terreno da responsabilidade subjetiva, sem, contudo, ter transformado a responsabilidade objetiva em regra geral incidente a partir de simples avaliação circunstancial de um dano verificado na relação de trabalho. Concluiu-se que as atividades que justifiquem a aplicação de uma responsabilidade especial dependem, na análise do caso concreto, antes da apreciação do mérito, de uma decisão judicial de natureza declaratória nesse sentido, representando valioso instrumento para a reparação dos danos ocorridos em atividades de risco não capituladas em lei. / The present study is concerned with labor-related accidents and their reparations through the normal course of law, taking into consideration the two main systems on which the employers civil liability is based - subjective and objective -, especially after the new Brazilian Civil Code came into force, which, in spite of the general rule of subjective liability being upheld in the caput of article 937, established in the single paragraph of this same article a special regimen of objective liability on the basis of hypotheses specified in law or on the hypothesis that the activity normally undertaken by the author of damages incurred implies by its very nature in risk to the rights of others. If the first part of the single paragraph of the article under discussion may be immediately comprehended, in the second part, the hypotheses are presented as a general rule, thus leaving the task of filling this legal interpretation gap in the hands of the person making the interpretation. This is a task which should be undertaken in the light of the Brazilian Federal Constitution, which, in article 7th subparagraph XXVIII, recognizes the liability of the employer by blame or intention. Thus with regard to labor-related accidents, the present thesis demonstrates that the theory of risk has increasingly advanced into the territory of subjective liability, without however turning objective liability into a general prevailing rule when undertaking circumstantial assessment of damages incurred as a result of work. It is concluded that activities which justify the application of special liability depend, where a concrete case is analyzed and before final judgment is passed, on a judicial declaration for this, and this represents a valuable instrument for reparation of damages incurred in activities of risk not covered by the law.

The purpose of this project was to develop an employer handbook to assist them in developing a return to work program for industrially injured workers.

本文全文共分六章，茲將各章之內容簡述如下: 第一章 緒論 本章主要論述本文研究之動機、研究方法以及略述各章之要點。章內就本文主要討論之點先予以顯明。 第二章 雇主責任之分析 本章主要乃就我國現行法制下雇主對其受僱人因職業災害所生之法律上責任為分析。而雇主責任基礎，除了民事上損害賠償責任外，尚有因職業災害補償制度所生之雇主補償責任。就民事上損害賠償責任而言，目前除了民法上侵權行為及債務不履行所生損害賠償責任外，尚有基於海商法所生雇主補償責任。而職業災害補償制度，我國現採雇主直接職業災害補償責任與社會保險雙軌併行制度，就雇主直接職業災害補償責任觀之，目前規定於我國勞動基準法、工廠法等勞工法規，基於保護勞工之立場，均採無過失責任，只強調客觀上是否有職業災害之發生，而不須討論雇主是否可歸責; 而勞工保險之職業災害給付，則將雇主責任社會保險化，以保險給付取代部分雇主職業災害補償責任。而因同一職業災害發生，使民事上雇主損害賠償責任與職業災害補償制度下所生雇主責任可能產生競合關係，應如何為處理，是否涉及受僱人雙重利得，均為本章所討論之重點。 第三章 雇主職業災害責任之風險管理 本章乃就雇主於面臨眾多職業災害責任所帶來風險之情況下因應之道。首先，先對因雇主責任所可能發生之風險種類為一概述。為了將此風險帶來損失程度降到最低，因此風險管理在現代企業中極為重要。因應雇主責任而所為風險管理，應就兩方向為之，一為降低職業災害發生率，此乃屬事前之預防工作，應由作好工作場所安全管理來著手; 另一則是保險之應用，此乃於事故發生後將損失程度降到最低之補救工作，目前我國之勞工保險、傷害保險、及雇主責任保險皆有移轉雇主責任風險之功能，並以此引導出雇主責任保險之重要性。 第四章 雇主責任保險之分析 本章乃就因應雇主所面臨之各種雇主責任，而分析理想中雇主責任保險應具有之內涵。先就雇主責任保險之基本架構，如保險契約當事人及關係人定義、保險事故及保險利益之內容為概述。於討論雇主責任保險之承保範圍時，因為職業災害中涉及職業病，但因職業病之特殊性，與意外事故之性質相差甚遠，故是否納為承保範圍中，有待討論。而事故發生後之理賠，則雇主民事損害賠償責任與職業災害補償責任之目的不同，前者主要在損害補償，後者則為保障勞工之生活，故責任額度之計算而有不同，且保險人是否承擔防禦費用，亦因雇主責任類型不同而生不同結果。且若雇主有重複投保雇主責任保險，是否涉及複保險之問題，且各保險人間因如何分攤，亦為本章討論之重點。 第五章 雇主責任保險與其他保險之競合 本章就雇主責任保險與勞工保險、團體傷害保險、及其他責任保險之間競合關係為論述。當職業災害發生時，勞工保險與雇主責任保險之保險人均生保險給付義務，欲解決此一問題，應先就受僱人之勞保給付受領權與其對雇主之請求權所生請求權競合關係為分析，若兩者間可雙重受領，則勞工保險給付與雇主責任保險間不生抵充問題，反之則否。而團體傷害保險，於保險法理上與責任保險不同，但因為我國內政部相關解釋函，肯定團體傷害保險給付得抵充雇主勞動基準法職業災害補償責任，因此，團體傷害保險與雇主責任保險間亦涉及競合關係，而應如何處理，仍有待討論。甚於雇主責任保險與其他責任保險間，則構成最典型之保險競合關係，各保險人基於損害填補原則，如何計算理賠分攤額，涉及眾多學說，亦為本章論述重點之一。 第六章 我國雇主責任保險之現制分析 本章乃就我國現行雇主意外責任保險市場概況為概述，並就其承保範圍過於狹窄，無法切合雇主真正需求所生種種缺失為分析，並參酌各家學說及外國相關保單，提出改進建議之道。 第七章 結論與建議 最後，就雇主所承擔之各種職業災害責任為一結合，並提出修法上之建議。且對於我國現行之雇主意外責任保險，針對目前之缺失，提出建議改進之道。